babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Old-school socialists these days know rhetoric from reality – and recognize clearly that society’s vulnerable 99 per cent rely for social control of the country on the productive 1 per cent who toil away diligently at the top.

Toil away while ye may, o noble 1%, for one day soon, your power shall be flushed!

On the other hand, now that the NDP is closer to forming government, the "careerist" type of person who ruined the Liberal party is taking another look at us. They see power. If we get into government, the lobbyists and corporate money will surely follow.

Personally, I think that whoever has been piloting the ship over the past ten years has been doing a great job. I wouldn't want to tinker with the formula too much. And I think there's a consensus among the candidates to be bold and compete everywhere, even if they bicker about each other's intentions.

I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it.

Winston wrote:

There are some in the Party that would rather be big fish in a little NDP pond than smaller fish in an NDP-government lake.

As far as the establishment goes, these people do not exist. Period.

They differ with you on the path to becoming the 'Big fish'. And quite naturally, they think the best way to get there includes them staying in the saddle.

But at bottom, they are no different than you. Their self-interest makes them fair game for questioning. But we all have stakes in the positions we take. And its the positions that matter, not bottomless waving at motivations behind positions.

"I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it."

The irony is that Mulcair is the clear choice of the Canadian Establishment, as expressed through official organs such as the Montreal Gazette, the Globe, and the Toronton Star. Mulcair is their man because he evidently shares their disdain for the NDP and everything it stands for.

In a recent interview with the Toronto Star, Mulcair summed up the contribution of the NDP to Canadian politics in these terms: "50 years of hectoring and finger-wagging and telling people what’s wrong with their decisions."

Earlier, in the context of a discussion about the role of labour in the party, Mulcair described trade unions as "just another interest group."

It's not just the "party establishment" that deplores such disparaging remarks about the NDP and its historic alliance with labour--an alliance that remains crucial at a time when workers are facing virulent attacks from employers and their political allies on both sides of the border. Thousands of discerning rank-and-file members know only too well that Mulcair's aim is to transform the NDP into another Liberal Party. That, in turn, would rehabilitate the real Liberal party and disillusion both traditional NDP voters as well as millions of voters who are looking for a real alternative to the neo-liberal dogma of the past 30 years.

The irony is that Mulcair is the clear choice of the Canadian Establishment, as expressed through official organs such as the Montreal Gazette, the Globe, and the Toronton Star. Mulcair is their man because he evidently shares their disdain for the NDP and everything it stands for.

Senior sources claim they would welcome his abrasiveness in the House of Commons because they don't think that style sells well to voters.

They see a leader who will be so engaged in repairing the crumbling foundation of the party in Quebec, that the party's other flanks, particularly British Columbia, will be vulnerable.

They see a leader who will be busy putting out internecine fires - or fuelling them - after his victory, possibly even losing Vancouver MP Libby Davies whose antipathy for Mulcair is well known and who could be prepared to move into the provincial arena where a cabinet seat would await her if New Democrat Adrian Dix wins the 2013 B.C. vote.

I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it.

Winston wrote:

There are some in the Party that would rather be big fish in a little NDP pond than smaller fish in an NDP-government lake.

As far as the establishment goes, these people do not exist. Period.

They differ with you on the path to becoming the 'Big fish'. And quite naturally, they think the best way to get there includes them staying in the saddle.

But at bottom, they are no different than you. Their self-interest makes them fair game for questioning. But we all have stakes in the positions we take. And its the positions that matter, not bottomless waving at motivations behind positions.

Apart from the suggestion that there is no party establishment (which is pretty much false by definition) I think your comments are probably quite accurate. I'm simply suggesting that the following attack...

Mulcair will move the party to the right, or at least to the centre.

Can more accurately be interpreted as...

If Mulcair wins, I won't have as much direct control over what the NDP does.

And as a result, I think the attacks are underhanded and childish. We should be making leadership decisions based on the positions the leadership candidates hold, not on whether the selection of one leader over another will lead to a reduction in the influence of some bureaucrat, strategist or party elder.

All these concerns about Mulcair aside, I am interested in governing. It seems to me Jack (blessed be his memory) was moving laterally as well, so I am concerned but I'm voting for Tom. I'll count on the membership at the constituency level to do its job and keep the muckey mucks honest.

as for cullen, that comment about "don't vote for me unless you want the ndp to go in a very different direction" signals to me that he might be a little worried about winning.

also, as a meta issue, is there a way we could tone back the 'rah-rah' stuff, especially on the mulcair side? i don't think there's a single person on this board who isn't very clear on who they support, and i can't be the only one it's turning off. that said, always good to clarify mulcair's positions when people randomly attack his candidacy or person.

let the media fantasize about what mulcair will do. when have they ever told the truth about the ndp? if mulcair does win, it just makes it that much easier for him to make credible arguments to the canadian people and that much more likely that we'll take government next election.

It is becoming increasingly implausible for Mulcair to deny he plans move the party to the centre (i.e., to the right of where it is now).

So, because the mainstream media - so villified on this board - says Mulcair will move the part to the centre, we all of a sudden believe it will happen? Since when do we get to selectively believe the mainstream media when it suits our position, but ridicule it when it runs opposite?

If you feel compelled to constantly fellate your candidate, at least get a room.

josh, this comment constitutes a personal attack on NorthReport and uses oppressive, homophobic language. Please refrain in the future.

This goes for everyone: I realize there's been a ton of leeway in the way of personal attacks (and general macho, masculinist posturing) in these NDP threads, but please try to remember where you are.

Catchfire is right: it's important that everyone on Babble try to always remain civil. A spirited debate about the relative merits and drawbacks of all the candidates is fine. Personal attacks on other Babblers are not.

On the subject of "oppressive, homophobic language," I was a bit disturbed by the following passage from a recent Maclean's article on Mulcair:

Maclean's wrote:

Mulcair was first elected to public office in 1994 as a Liberal member of Quebec’s national assembly. Journalist Vincent Marissal recalls first encountering Mulcair a year or so later, during a friendly game of hockey, Liberals against press gallery scribes. Marissal was skating in front of his own net, sans puck, when Mulcair knocked him to the ice. “I thought he was going to throw down his gloves,” Marissal says. Instead, Mulcair hissed at the prostrate columnist: “Stop complaining, you big sissy, and get back on your skates.”

Mulcair was obviously speaking to Marissal in French and I have no idea what French term would translate to "sissy" in English

A good point. I don't know what the original French term would have been either. It's possible that the article translates Mulcair's word poorly. If the word Mulcair used does translate into anything like "sissy," though, then the quote is rather perturbing.

If you feel compelled to constantly fellate your candidate, at least get a room.

josh, this comment constitutes a personal attack on NorthReport and uses oppressive, homophobic language. Please refrain in the future.

This goes for everyone: I realize there's been a ton of leeway in the way of personal attacks (and general macho, masculinist posturing) in these NDP threads, but please try to remember where you are.

Catchfire is right: it's important that everyone on Babble try to always remain civil. A spirited debate about the relative merits and drawbacks of all the candidates is fine. Personal attacks on other Babblers are not.

On the subject of "oppressive, homophobic language," I was a bit disturbed by the following passage from a recent Maclean's article on Mulcair:

Maclean's wrote:

Mulcair was first elected to public office in 1994 as a Liberal member of Quebec’s national assembly. Journalist Vincent Marissal recalls first encountering Mulcair a year or so later, during a friendly game of hockey, Liberals against press gallery scribes. Marissal was skating in front of his own net, sans puck, when Mulcair knocked him to the ice. “I thought he was going to throw down his gloves,” Marissal says. Instead, Mulcair hissed at the prostrate columnist: “Stop complaining, you big sissy, and get back on your skates.”

Mulcair was obviously speaking to Marissal in French and I have no idea what French term would translate to "sissy" in English

A good point. I don't know what the original French term would have been either. It's possible that the article translates Mulcair's word poorly. If the word Mulcair used does translate into anything like "sissy," though, then the quote is rather perturbing.

Horrible! Even worse, I heard that at a meet and greet that Tom ate ribs for dinner! Appaling! I do not want an NDP Leader who eats ribs!

I think if Tom used the word sissy almost 20 years ago, then it was wrong to do so. See the key word... "if".
That said, all I've seen is a great respect and appreciation for others including women and the GLBT community in his actions and words.
Funny how if the media say something positive about Tom, it's proof that he's a sell out and we shouldn't trust him... but if they say something negative about Tom, it's accurate and factual as if it's god's word. Priceless.